| Reference: | 參考文獻
中文資料：
一、中文專書論文（依姓氏筆劃排序）
Richard A. Posner，蔣兆康譯，法律經濟學，2010年8月。
陳聰富，美國懲罰性賠償金的發展趨勢──改革運動與實證研究的對峙，
收錄於：侵權歸責原則與損害賠償，元照出版，頁341-366，2008年。
楊智傑，美國專利法與重要判決，2015年10月。
謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，元照五版，2014年8月。
二、中文期刊專論 （依姓氏筆劃排序）
宋皇志，專利法中「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」之法實證研究，政大法學評論第146期，頁53-125，2016年9月。
李玄、王立達，美國後eBay時代專利侵權案件之永久禁制令：以法院見解發展與實證研究為中心，智慧財產評論第12卷第二期，頁153-194，2014年。
李素華，僱傭關係下發明權益之研究：以我國專利法為中心，台大法學論叢，39卷1期，頁1-70，2010年3月。
李素華，智財訴訟中之損害賠償／專利權侵害之損害賠償計算──以合理權利金法為例，全國律師，第14卷第6期，頁16-25，2010年6月。
李素華、張哲倫，專利之制度目的及權利本質──法院在其中之關鍵角色及功能，月旦法學雜誌232期，頁191-222，2014年9月。
李素華、張哲倫，專利進步性判斷之法學方法論──美、德之借鏡及臺灣實務之檢討，月旦法學雜誌第242期，頁227-259，2015年7月。
李素華，民事法院自為判斷專利有效性與加速解決紛爭之迷思──從最高法院一O四年度台上第四O七號民事判決談起，月旦裁判時報第43期，頁31-43，2016年1月。
李素華，智慧財產侵害之「損害發生」與損害賠償法制建構──從智慧財產法院九十七年度民專訴字第四七號民事判決談起，月旦法學雜誌第263期，頁167-191，2017年4月。
汪渡村，專利侵權損害賠償計算標準之研究以所失利益為中心，銘傳大學法學論叢，第 2 期，頁125-170 ，2004年。
沈宗倫，專利侵害均等論之過去、現在及未來－我國法應何去何從？，東吳法律學報第 20卷第2期，頁173-222，2008年10月。
沈宗倫，均等論與禁反言之「權利糾葛」——評最高法院九十六年台上字第一一三四號民事判決及其下級法院判決，月旦法學雜誌第162期，頁138-166，2008年11月。
沈宗倫，專利侵害責任範圍因果關係的合理詮釋與再建構，科技法學評論，第8卷第 1期，頁1-56，2011年。
沈宗倫，以合理權利金為中心的新專利損害賠償法制──評智慧財產法院九十八年度民專上易字第二五號判決及其初審法院判決，月旦法學雜誌第211期，頁178-199，2012年12月。
沈宗倫，專利權之公示與公信，專利師第17期，頁1-22，2014年4月。
沈宗倫，專利權排除侵害之相對性與衡平法理──以智慧財產法院一○○年度民專上字第五七號判決為例，月旦法學雜誌第253期，頁181-209，2016年6月。
沈宗倫，標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用──以誠實信用原則為中心，政大法學評論第149期（尚未出刊），2017年6月。
陳國成，我國均等論實務之發展──由最高法院102年度台上字第1986號判決觀察，科技法學評論13卷1期，頁69-114，2016年5月。
張添榜、王立達、劉尚志，我國專利法上均等論適用之實證研究：是變奏還是變調？，科技法學評論10卷2期，頁1-71，2013年12月。
張哲倫、李素華，專利法之經濟結構──經濟分析理論對於臺灣專利制度運作之啟發，月旦法學雜誌234期，頁229-262，2014年11月。
張哲倫、李素華，專利民事訴訟申請專利範圍解釋之方法論──理論、主體、客體及標準，月旦法學雜誌236期，頁190-209，2015年1月。
張哲倫、李素華，再論申請專利範圍解釋之方法論──定性為法律問題之風險及內外部證據區分之實益，月旦法學雜誌240期，頁248-260，2015年5月。
許忠信，從德國法之觀點看我國專利權侵害之損害賠償責任，臺北大學法學論叢，第61期，頁79-110 ，2007年。
劉國讚，專利均等侵害判斷原則適用之探討──兼論多功能保眼眼罩事件，專利師第27期，頁58-77，2016年10月。
謝銘洋、李素華，專利權訴訟中之進步性與均等論──德國觀點，台灣法學雜誌第218期，頁87-126，2013年2月。
三、學位論文（依姓氏筆劃排序）
林洲富，專利侵害之民事救濟制度，國立中正大學法律研究所博士論文，2007年。
陳蕙君，論專利權的價值－以選擇最適鑑價機制為基礎，國立中正大學法律研究所，博士論文，2015年。
賴遠青，美國專利授權合理權利金的計算方式探討，國立交通大學管理學院科技法律學程碩士論文，2012年7月，頁4。
四、新聞資料
林君宜，半數以上專利，禁不起訴訟檢視──專利熱即將泡沫化？，商業週刊第949期，2006年6月。
外文資料：
一、英文專書論著
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962), Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS
Blair, Roger D. & Cotter, Thomas F. (2005), INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: ECONOMIC AND LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Bohannan, Christina & Hovenkamp, Herbert (2012), CREATION WITHOUT RESTRAINT: PROMOTING LIBERTY AND RIVALRY IN INNOVATION
Carlton, Dennis W. & Perloff, Jeffery M. (3rd, 2000), MODERN INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
Cooter, Robert & Ulen, Thomas (6th ed. 2016), LAW AND ECONOMICS
Fisher III, William W. (Munzer, Stephen R. ed., 2001), Theories of Intellectual Property, in NEW ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL THEORY OF PROPERTY
Landes, William M. & Posner, Richard A. (November 2003), THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Ross, Terence P. (2006), INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: DAMAGES AND REMEDIES
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (5th ed. 1976), CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND DEMOCRACY
Schwartz, Herbert F. & Goldman, Robert J. (BNA Books 6th ed. 2008), PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE
二、英文期刊專論
Abramowicz, Michael & Duffy, John F., The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 YALE L.J. 1590 (2011)
Adams, Charles W., The Doctrine of Equivalents: Becoming a Derelict on the Waters of Patent Law, 84 NEB. L. REV. 1113 (2006).
Adelman, Martin J. & Francione, Gary L., The Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Questions That Pennwalt Did Not Answer, 137 U. PA. L. REV. 673(1989)
Allison. John R. & Lemley, Mark A., The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 STAN. L. REV. 955 (2007)
Bell, Abraham & Parchomovsky, Gideon, Reinventing Copyright and Patent, 113 MICH. L. REV. 231 (2014)
Bloom, Nicholas & Schankerman, Mark & Reenen, John Van, Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry, 81 ECONOMETRICA 1347 (2010)
Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A., Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 BERK. TECH. L.J. 1155 (2003)
Burstein, Michael J., Exchanging Information Without Intellectual Property, 91 TEX. L. REV. 227 (2012)
Calabresi, Guido & Melamed, A. Douglas, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972)
Castanias, Gregory A. et al., Survey of the Federal Circuit`s Patent Law Decisions in 2006: A New Chapter in the Ongoing Dialogue with the Supreme Court, 56 AM. U. L. REV. 793 (2007)
Cheung, Steven N. S., Property Rights in Trade Secrets, 20 ECONOMIC INQUIRY 40 (1982)
Chiang, Tun-Jen, Forcing Patent Claims, 113 MICH. L. REV. 513 (2015)
Chien, Colleen V., Holding Up and Holding Out, 21 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 1 (2014).
Cotter, Thomas F., Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Response, 34 J.CORP.L.1151 (2009)
Darrow, Jonathan J., The Neglected Dimension of Patent Law’s PHOSITA Standard, 23 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 227 (2009)
Diessel, Benjamin H., Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-eBay, 106 MICH. L. REV. 305 (2007)
Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patent and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1017 (1989)
Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patent Costs and Unlicensed Use of Patented Inventions, 78 U. CHI. L. REV. 53 (2011)
Frischmann, Brett M. & Lemley, Mark A., Spillovers, 107 COLUM. L. REV 257 (2007)
Fromer, Jeanne C. & Lemley, Mark A., The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement, 112 MICH. L. REV. 1251 (2014)
Fromer, Jeanne C., Patent Disclosure, 94 IOWA L. REV. 539 (2009)
Golden, John M., Principles for Patent Remedies, 88 TEX. L. REV. 505 (2010)
Golden, John M., Reasonable Certainty in Contract and Patent Damages, 30 HARV. J. L. & TECH 257 ( 2017)
Gooding, Martha K. & Rooklidge, William C., The Real Problem with Patent Infringement Damages, 91 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 484 (2009)
Gregory D`Incelli, Has eBay Spelled the End of Patent Troll Abuses? Paying the Toll: The Rise (And Fall?) of the Patent Troll, 17 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 343 (2009)
Heald, Paul J., Optimal Remedies for Patent Infringement: A Transactional Model, 45 HOUSTON L REV 1165 (2008)
Heller, Michael A. & Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 SCIENCE 698 (1998)
Hemel, Daniel J. & Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Beyond the Patents-Prizes Debate, 92 TEX L REV 303 (2013)
Hovenkamp, Erik & Cotter, Thomas F., Anticompetitive Patent Injunctions, 100 MINN. L. REV. 871 (2016)
Kapczynski, Amy & Syed. Talha, The Continuum of Excludability and the Limits of Patents, 122 YALE L. J. 1900 (2013)
Kapczynski, Amy, The Cost of Price: Why and How to Get beyond Intellectual Property Internalism, 59 UCLA L REV 970 (2012)
Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 HARV. L. REV. 713 (1996)
Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J.L. & ECON. 265 (1977)
Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991 (2007)
Lemley, Mark A., Contracting around Liability Rules, 100 CAL. L. REV. 463 (2012)
Lemley, Mark A., Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 655 (2009)
Lemley, Mark A., The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms, 104 MICH. L. REV. 101 (2005)
Lemley, Mark A., The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 TEX. L. REV. 989 (1997)
Lemley, Mark A., The Myth of the Sole Inventor, 110 MICH. L. REV. 709 (2012)
Lerner, Josh, The Patent System in a Time of Turmoil, 2 WIPO J. 28 (2010)
Meara, Joseph P., Just Who Is the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art? Patent Law`s Mysterious Personage, 77 WASH. L. REV. 267 (2007)
Merges, Robert P., Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 CAL. L. REV. 803 (1988)
Merges, Robert P., Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 CALIF. L. REV. 1293 (1996).
Merges, Robert P., Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property, 94 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 2655 (1994)
Millard, Elizabeth E., Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Cases: Should Courts Apply a Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm After eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.?, 52 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 985 (2008)
Moore, Kimberly A., Populism and Patents, 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 69 (2007)
Mulder, Jeremy, The Aftermath of eBay: Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 67 (2007)
Newman, Pauline, The Federal Circuit: Judicial Stability or Judicial Activism?, 42 AM. U. L. REV. 683 (1993), in PRINCIPLE OF PATENT LAW 11 (2013)
Parchomovsky, Gideon & Siegelman, Peter, Towards an Integrated Theory of Intellectual Property, 88 VA. L. REV. 1455 (2002)
Petersen, Benjamin, Injunctive Relief in the Post-eBay World, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 193 (2008)
Petherbridge, Lee, On the Decline of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 1371 (2010)
Roin, Benjamin N., Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Refraining the Debate, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 999 (2014).
Sarnoff, Joshua D., Abolishing the Doctrine of Equivalents and Claiming the Future After Festo, 19(4) BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1157 (2004)
Schwartz, David L., Explaining the Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 26 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1157 (2011)
Shapiro, Carl, Injunctions, Hold-up, and Patent Royalties, 12(2) AM. L. & ECON. REV. 280 (Fall 2010)
Sichelman, Ted, Purging Patent Law of ‘Private Law’ Remedies, 92 TEX. L. REV. 517 (2014)
Siebrasse, Norman V. & Cotter, Thomas F., A New Framework for Determining Reasonable Royalties in Patent Litigation, 68 FLA. L. REV. 929 (2016)
Sturicz, Natalie, Phillips v. Awh, Corp., a Doctrine of Equivalents Case?, 12 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 385 (2008)
Taylor, David O., Using Reasonable Royalties to Value Patented Technology, 49 GA. L. REV. 79 (2014)
Thomas, eBay’s bid to stop the injunctions,THE ECONOMIST(Mar. 30, 2006)
Thomas, J ohn R., Claim Re-construction: The Doctrine of Equivalents in the Post-Markman Era, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 153 (2005)
Vertinsky, Liza, Comparing Alternative Institutional Paths to Patent Reform, 61 ALA L REV 501 (2010)
White, Alan, The Doctrine of Equivalents: Fairness and Uncertainty in an Era of Biologic Pharmaceuticals, 60 EMORY L.J. 751 (2011)
三、研究報告
Dubiansky, John, A Competition Perspective on Apportionment of Patent Infringement Remedies, Competition policy International (May, 2016). Available at: https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/North-America-Column-Full.pdf
FED. TRADE COMM`N, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition (2011). Available at : https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-and-remedies-competition-report-federal-trade/110307patentreport.pdf
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2016 Patent litigation study (2016).Available at : http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2016-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf
四、網路資料：
Vrountas, Christopher T. & Loftus, Richard S. & Palmer, Cori Phillips, Patent Trolls: Who, What, Where & How to Defend Against Them (2011). Available at: https://www.nhbar.org/uploads/pdf/BJ-Autumn2011-Vol52-No3-Pg40.pdf |
